Last week we wrote about a growing community of online activists who have organized to oppose the activities of pornographic copyright trolling firms. Many of these community members have been targeted by troll lawsuits themselves, and they have created or commented on websites like Fight Copyright Trolls and Die Troll Die to help other victims fight back.

One of the most controversial trolling firms, Prenda Law, has filed a defamation lawsuit against a collection of anonymous online Internet commenters, including at least two we profiled in our story. Also targeted in the lawsuit is Alan Cooper—the man who accused Prenda Law of stealing his identity to use as the CEO of two litigious shell companies—and Cooper's attorney Paul Godfread.

Three lawsuits were filed in Illinois and Florida state courts in mid-February. They were moved to federal court late last week. The complaints are similar, but the plaintiffs are different. One lawsuit was filed by Prenda Law itself. The other two were filed by Prenda attorneys John Steele and Paul Duffy.

“What assclowns they are”

The majority of each complaint is a catalog of allegedly defamatory statements made by various Internet commenters. "Prenda employs a brain-damaged attorney," reads one comment to a post on Die Troll Die. "It is hardly a surprise to those who follow Prenda and other trolls: cockroaches tend to explore cracks in the floor (in this case, the floor of the US judicial system)," wrote SJD, the owner of Fight Copyright Trolls, in a January post.

In another case of alleged defamation, Fight Copyright Trolls reader James Donnaught commented on Prenda's alleged habit of regularly adopting new corporate identities: "Too many of the marks were Googling 'Prenda' and discovering what assclowns they are. Not good for business. Am I the only one wondering if they plan to keep changing their skin every year, just as the annual report comes due?"

"These are the kind of people who would rob their families blind if it suited their ambitions," wrote reader SaveADoeStarveATroll on a Fight Copyright Trolls post. "A few decades ago, Psychologist would be diagnosing these clowns as Criminal Psychopaths... This is the same psychosis that drives people like Bundy and Dahmer."

Fight Copyright Trolls reader CTVic described the Prenda attorneys as "just a bunch of bumbling idiots playing a massive game of 'Who's on first?'"

In Prenda's view, all of these authors and commenters on Fight Copyright Trolls and Die Troll Die are guilty of libel. But Prenda's critics aren't scared.

"I stand by everything I wrote," said SJD in a Monday post. "Maybe the words I have chosen were overly emotional, but everything I said has been based on provable facts and good faith. In addition, I never tried to smuggle my opinions as facts."

"This country is still a world leader in free speech, and I hope that the outcome of these lawsuits will only strengthen my and many others’ pride," SJD wrote.

The anti-troll activist DieTrollDie also stands by his comments, according to a comment on SJD's post. He was mentioned by name in the Prenda complaints. "It was done in good faith with the available information and facts," he wrote. "Their actions speak louder than words and they paint the picture I try to make available so others can make their own decisions."

Filing a defamation lawsuit is a high-stakes gamble for Prenda. Alleging that the defendants have made false and defamatory statements gives those defendants the right to seek documentation from Prenda to determine whether the statements are, in fact, false. If Prenda's critics are right that the firm has been engaging in ethically questionable activities, Prenda's own lawsuit could become a vehicle for revealing evidence confirming those accusations.

Of course, Prenda may be running out of options. Next week, Prenda attorney Brett Gibbs is scheduled to appear in a Los Angeles federal court to explain why he shouldn't face sanctions related to Alan Cooper's identity theft accusations. Perhaps Prenda has calculated its dirty laundry was going to come out one way or the other, and it was better to stay on offense.

We attempted to contact Prenda by phone and e-mail for a comment but have not yet heard back. We will update the story should this change.

Alleging that the defendants have made false and defamatory statements gives those defendants the right to seek documentation from Prenda to determine whether the statements are, in fact, false.

Yeah, especially in the case of Alan Cooper, where they will now most definitely need to prove that either he agreed to be a corporate officer, or produce a different Alan Cooper who will testify that they are that person.

Then again, a lawsuit probably means that this sort of info won't need to be provided for a while (months if not a year or two). I assume this is a scare tactic to see if they can make those people stop talking about them. Poor bet though, since I'm also guessing that there's a host of lawyers who are willing to represent them pro bono.

Not only that, but so could any readers who leave comments on Prenda stories! I don't feel very intimidated though.

Not that scared either. Walmart can't sue me for saying "Walmart sucks," (not that I would for the most part) and since Walmart has WAAAAY more money than Prenda Law, I can say, without fear, Prenda Law needs to shut up.

Besides, I'm in college, so if Prenda sues me and I win money, I'll be happy. It'll be like reverse trolling.

I didn't see any specific information on Alan Cooper. What was Prenda's point of view in their lawsuit? It should be trivial to prove they stole his identity..

I was looking for this as well -- what could Prenda sue him for?

What a bunch of dick-wallets -- they never answer any questions asked of them (by the court, or others), they just continue to accuse others of wrong doing like spoiled children. Man up John Steele and face the consquenses of your actions instead of hiding like a baby.

If there were any justice the targets of these bogus suits could ignore them and judges would toss them as lacking any merit. Instead they must scramble to pay lawyers because of the grave risk of default judgment.

Unless they're working hard to build a believable insanity case, I don't get their motive for this.

There is the chance that Prenda believes lawsuits might silence their critics and help their chances in court, but if they believe that they're either the worst lawyers ever (very likely), and/or incredibly stupid (also very likely).

I haven't heard this mentioned anywhere, but while I'm sure the people behind this "firm" are garden variety sociopaths, I can't help but connect the explosion of trolling firms with the economic breakdown of the legal profession. Everything I'm hearing suggests that economic uncertainty of the past decade or so has driven huge numbers of people to pursue the "guaranteed income" of the legal profession, creating an overabundance of new lawyers with huge academic debts and limited placement options. The median starting incomes I've heard quoted are easily less than half what they would have been ten years ago.

I can't help but see this as desperation, followed by failure, followed by painful attempts to salvage pride.

I didn't see any specific information on Alan Cooper. What was Prenda's point of view in their lawsuit? It should be trivial to prove they stole his identity..

*Edit - I looked at the actual lawsuit, and it looks like they are countersuing him for falsely accusing them of stealing his identity. I cannot see how they could possibly win.

The complaint is really vague about what individual defendants supposedly did to defame Prenda. I assume they included Cooper for claiming they stole his identity, but they don't really spell that out in the complaint.

There is the chance that Prenda believes lawsuits might silence their critics and help their chances in court, but if they believe that they're either the worst lawyers ever (very likely), and/or incredibly stupid (also very likely).

The suit against Alan Cooper seems the most ill-conceived one. Obviously, the ability of others to criticize the actions of Prenda are all free speech issues (and for those who haven't seen me offer opinions on legal cases here at Ars before, I'm pretty damned passionate about that particular issue). There's a lot of negative opinions about Prenda, but very little that is not aided by information, which means their claims of defamation are (very) likely ill-founded.

The suit against Alan Cooper, though...that's just downright puzzling, logically. Demonstrating that he is providing false statement about their company would be relatively simple: bring out the real Alan Cooper. That would dismiss the charges of identity theft while simultaneously allowing them to make the argument that he was defaming them. If it turns out that he's correct, then they're also guilty of bringing a suit in bad faith, which itself can be actionable.

Bringing suit against Alan Cooper without actually backing up their use of the name Alan Cooper is a bizarre move that could lead to quite a bit more trouble down the way.

If Prenda's clients weren't Godless pornographers, I'd be seriously starting to wonder right now whether Jack Thompson was actually the mind behind Prenda. These latest lawsuits have swung firmly into exactly the kind of crazy that used to be his trademark. It will be interesting to see if this whole episode results in the same eventual fate of disbarment and disgrace for John Steele (or whomever is really behind it all) as it did for Thompson.

Wonder if those accused have been approached by either the EFF or ACLU for defense. Both would have something to gain by pushing online freedom of speech and defense from allegations of defamation in the form of observation and critique/commentary, a big issue with the recent rash of lawsuit happy businesses that get bad marks on places like Yelp.

Having a cursory idea of how difficult it often can be to actually receive a winning verdict in slander and libel cases (in the US--some other countries are much easier to prevail in), I can only imagine general defamation cases are even more difficult. Reading over the quotes cited here as being part of the suit, I can only shake my head. Prenda law at its finest? Nearly all of these are couched in such a way as to be conditional/speculative rather than declaratory/directly accusatory... usually it's almost impossible to win a slander or libel case on those terms, I can't imagine a defamation case would be any better... and even worse (for Prenda), if defamation suits follow the same format as libel/slander, it falls on Prenda to prove that the statements are false.

Unless they're working hard to build a believable insanity case, I don't get their motive for this.

Oh God, please let's just put that idea right back in the box and forget it ever happened. Corporate personhood is problematic enough, the last thing the world needs is a corporate insanity legal defense!

Out of all of the cases that I've seen Prenda file, THIS is the one that I want them to follow through on the most! Several of my comments on http://www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com were cited in their complaint, and I would LOVE to stand before a judge and recite them aloud before John Steele.

I'm going to have sweet, sweet, lovey dreams tonight about performing beatnik poetry about Steele suing gramma over downloading "Stop Daddy, My Ass Is On Fire" and "Plump Pumpers". I'll be sure to look into his eyes uncomfortably as I recite my special comment about him sitting in a homeless shelter, wearing nothing but a sign that says "will gargle balls for food".

I may have recently quit smoking, but the afterglow of this event would demand a slow, deliberate puff or two.

PLEASE-O-PLEASE-O-PLEASE-O-PLEASE-O-PLEASE-O-PLEASE-O-PLEASE-O-PLEASE discover me and summon me to this event!!!

Somehow fitting that it's now legal trolls feeding the Internet trolls. THIS TIME, though, they'll make the abuse stop! I'm certain, with this threat of barratry, that nobody will now dare to speak ill of Prenda </sarcasm/.

He's gonna run, Its the only way he'll be able to keep any of his assets at this point once this is over. I suspect they are already burrying assests and money in the caymans

It occurs to me that one way you might be able to cover up such a sudden and rapid retreat as described here, would be by staging an elaborate feigned counter attack against everyone everywhere who has been following (and commenting on) the news about all of Prenda's (presumably) soon-to-be-dismissed court cases. Much like... umm... these counter-suits, for example... just file lawsuits with one hand, to make it look like you're chagrined over all of these assaults on your character, and book flights/pack bags with the other hand.

To succeed at a libel lawsuit one must prove one's reputation was actually damaged. Could plaintiff's reputation possibly sink any lower? This is not snark - I recall a libel case filed by a mafioso type that got tossed out of court on exactly those grounds - plaintiff's reputation could not possibly be sullied any more than it already was.

$10 says when this whole thing gets sorted out, not only will we discover that Prenda doesn't and never existed but nobody ever filed any of these suits - they just came into being of their own. The idea that the suits should exist caused them to exist.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.